Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-04

IL any difference, 1t is in favor Of wines. |
4 person could kill himself by an
excessive use of either. It, perhaps,
might take a less quantity of wine or
beer to injure man than it would require
Of cider or lemonade. But it also takes
8 less quantity of certain drugs to destroy
life than it does of others, but it does
not argue that the more potent drug is
not as useful and necessary as
the other. The expense of the tenn
perate use of wine or beer is not more
than that of cider or lemonade, and even
il it were, man has q right to govern
his own expense in the matter. If 8 state
can dictate to a man the amount of lis
expenses in luXuries, it can in the neces-
saries of life also. In fact, it would be
Impossible to determine where articles of
necessity and those of superiority begin.
So then the crime cannot be in the I'M ury
or expense attending the temperate use of
Intoxicating liquors. If any one mans
taste prefers wine or beer to cider or
lemonade, it is no other mans business
to restrain him in indulging this taste any
more than any other taste.
| It is clearly plain that the crime, if crime
there be, is not in the use of these arti-
cles as beverages but in the abuses of
I
| justice would say, punish the man that
abuses them but do not punish the man
that commits no crime in the use of them
| But this amendment proposes not only to
prevent men from abusing Intoxicating
| liquors but from a temperate use of all of
them. The whole,su and substance of the
amendment is that hereafter no man shalt
use intoxic sting liquors as q beverage
Some will deny this, but the amendment
| itself shows that such Will be the effect
of its enforcement if carried. But if the
amendment read that hereafter no man
| in this state shall use intoxicating liquors
as beverage, it would receive no sup
port but from few puritanical Pharisees
that have strange habit of looking after
other peoples business and habits more
than they do their own, and thanking God
that they are not as other men are, for
which fact other men ought to thank God
they are not like them Wills Point
Chronicle.
The "True Blue" quotes copiously
from preachers, women and the Bible.
And yet they denounce them as "long-
haired men and short haired women"
and urge that the Bible should be elm
mated from the question: Denton
Monitor.
Here is an article in our Penal Code
that interferes with personal liberty:
Art. 500 If any white person and negro
shall knowingly inter-marry with each
other within this state, or having so inter
married, in or out of the state, shall con-
tinue to live together as man and wife
within this state, they shall be punished
by confinement in the penitentiary for a
term not less than two nor more than
five years.
The Sun would like for Mr.. Gibbs or
any other anti prohibitionist to say whe-
Their he is in favor of repeating the above
article. 1t certainly interferes with per-
sonal liberty, and that is the shibboleth of
the anti prohibitionists. They are at lib
erty to take either horn of the dilemma
Georgetown Sun.
1t is disgusting to see with how much
evidity few small-fry people are sailing
into Reagan for favorlng prohibition
when last year he opposed the prohibition
party because it antagonized the Demo-
cratic party. Reagan would lay off his
coat and fight the devil single handed if
he was to come on earth and oppose the
Democratic party in tangible form. He,
like every other true, loyal Democrat, OPP
posed the prohibition party, but he be-
lieves in prohibition as q means to rid the
land of intoxicant liquors. These pesti-
ferrous insects can only annoy him like
the flies annoy the lion Kaufman Sun.
-
The liquor speakers and voters argue
that business prosperity depends on the
amount of liquor sold. They also argue
that there is more liquor sold under pro-
hibitlon than without it. Then they turn
around and argue that prohibition ruins
business! To Democrats they say prohi-
bition will break up the Democratic
party. To Republicans they say prohibit
ton will break up the Republican
party. To prohibitlonists they say it will
ruin the temperance cause and set it
back fifty years. They tell the colored
people that prohibition is an attempt to
put them back into slavery. If it was
Republican move how could it be an at
tempt to put the cOlOred people back into
slavery? Because the Republican party
gave the colOred man his liberty. They
say it will drive the whisky business out
of the saloons into the drug stores, and in
the next breath say man won't be al
lowed to buy little blackberry wine for
collie drops for the baby. They Say it in
frlnges on the personal liberty OF the
citizen, and in the next breath say that
the citizen will drink more liquor with
prohibition than without it. They
say this is religious war. YET theirs
is the only side that discusses religion at
all in connection with prohibition. They
say that prohibition is an attempt to
unite church and state, yet when any rem
egade preacher sails in to help them keep
whisky and state united they cackle like
pulIet that has laid her first egg. The
liq Tor advocates are all things to all men
and never make any one argument but
what disproves some other arguments.
Such is the weakness of the True Blue
cause Waco Advance.
~
Since the publication of the letters
from Messrs. Reagan, Coke, Maxey, Cul-
berson and others, all of whom pro-
nounee the attempt of the anti prohibition